|
|
|
|
|
|
by janderson3
2141 days ago
|
|
|
I find it fascinating that in that ad the schlubs that are sitting there watching the television are Fortnite default skins and not say, replicas of the characters that hold the same position in the original Apple ad. This really supports Dan Olson manufactured discontent assertion[0]. Even if you support them and play their game, if you don't spend money for skins, you're still in Big Brother's audience. The wildest thing is that the Jackboots behind the hammer thrower are approximate replicas of the Apple Ad. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPHPNgIihR0 |
|
|
Not that long ago, the MMO standard was $15 a month* (plus the initial $50+). Not to unlock the cool stuff, but simply to play at all. And nobody felt like there was anything sinister about it.
With Fortnite, you can play for free as much as you like, or (based on what I gathered from the video) pay <$10 every 2.5 months to be on the cool track. Seems like a pretty good deal in comparison, assuming that they're rolling out new (non-shop) content at a reasonable rate.
Even if you support them and play their game
How are you supporting them if you don't pay? Sure, they benefit from network effects, but ultimately they obviously need a lot of paying customers. Have we really gotten to the point where people expect to play AAA games for free and view it as audacious if the developers incentivize people to pay for things? As mentioned, I did much prefer the old model because it precluded this kind of stuff from seeping into the experience, but I don't think there's anything fundamentally sinister or wrong with trying to push people towards paying for your game (though I will say the "let me see your Marsh Walk emote" stuff was pretty cringey, but that's another story).
*I realize that Fortnite is not an MMO but it seems to fit the bill for something you would pay a subscription for these days. You could hold the Battle Pass for over a year for the classic $50-60 game price.